Page 5 of 60 FirstFirst 123456789101555 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 593

Thread: Free Market Capitalism Incompatible With Nationalism

  1. #41
    Spenglerian
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Caledonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Online
    Tuesday, July 26th, 2011 @ 05:30 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Scottish
    Ancestry
    Scotland,England, Germany,Austria,Switzerland
    Subrace
    Alpinid
    Country
    United States United States
    Location
    Sverige snart nog
    Gender
    Age
    33
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    RecyclingPlant / College Student
    Politics
    Socially Progressive Nationalism
    Religion
    Atheist, Nihilist, And Mystic
    Posts
    2,432
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    4
    Thanked in
    4 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by genius View Post
    A lot of good points here.

    Capitalism is certainly old and natural but so is government regulation.

    What is Alarich wanting here though? Essentially a non-competitive world where small business is protected from Wal-Mart? Where wages are kept high and people don't need to compete so much? This creates less efficiency it also goes against his other threads where he supports anarchy and now he's supporting a strong central government.

    The problem is people should not look for the government to solve their problems. If you don't like wal-mart don't shop there. Shop at the local mom and pop store. you will pay higher prices, but that's what you want. It is a leftist idea to force your views on everyone else "make them all pay higher prices because I want the store protected".

    We don't live in an unrestrained free market. There have always been tariffs and such. Anti-monopoly laws exist. Labor laws and so forth. Pure free market capitalism would be destructive to a nation, no serious or educated person doubts this.

    I agree with the general view that modern Globalist Capitalism is harmful to nationalism but that's sort of apparent right from the name right? Let's not confuse 'Capitalism' as ONLY meaning the type of capitalism we have today in the U.S. or West Europe. No.

    Obviously a nationalist state would have certain laws and structure that would be more beneficial to the quality of the community rather than to "profit". So I think that was a very good and insightful point. I have taken note of some of the arguments here they are very useful.

    If we are looking at a National Socialist type state we must understand the big differance between a folkish socialist state and a modern "progressive" socialist state.

    In the folkish state wages are kept high. But retards, criminals etc. are removed from the labor pool, sterilized and so on. In leftist socialism wages are kept high, welfare freely dolled out etc. except the increasingly stupid and criminal population is left unchecked and the parasites grow fat from the "socialism".

    At any rate I think the solutions to our problems starts more on a grass roots level organizing rather than looking to the government. We should be able to form our own communities which weed out parasites and help each other out. One person could buy a business and pay the others a high wage etc. In that way he can show his community responsibility rather than looking to unrestrained greed. It all starts in the ideas of the people- the folk- not in governance. We need to see that there is more to the life and prosperity of a community than just sheckels and gold. The folk element is very important to national prosperity as well as the eternal ideal values and morals the people possess.
    A lot of good points here.

    Capitalism is certainly old and natural but so is government regulation.
    Capitalism as a economical system and political ideology really isn't that old at all. As for being natural well that's just a interesting way of describing it in that I would like to know the context of the word natural in the way you are using it.

    What is Alarich wanting here though?
    A couple of things.

    I want us to return to a national socialized planned form of economy with a socialized market system going back to a mercantile framework but a type of mercantilism that is completely modernized.

    Essentially a non-competitive world where small business is protected from Wal-Mart? Where wages are kept high and people don't need to compete so much? This creates less efficiency it also goes against his other threads where he supports anarchy and now he's supporting a strong central government.
    It's really a bit of a perpetuated myth and a form of slander that nationalized economies are less competitive.

    I can think of many competitive nationalized economies of entire civilizations in the past that expanded greatly in a variety of ways by a variety of means.

    Mercantilism is a form of nationalized economy that was used between the 16th and 18th centuries.

    Are you trying to tell me that there was no competition and expansion during those centuries of history? Why is it that I would not believe you if you said as much?

    it also goes against his other threads where he supports anarchy and now he's supporting a strong central government.
    Actually the national economical structure would work in existence of anarchy as well amongst smaller communities besides being upholded by a vast statist centralized government.

    [Such a national economical structure could work in both instances.]

    I of course am a anarchist in that I don't believe any form of government should exist at all in that the people should be able to rule and coordinate themselves at a local level.

    I do believe in leadership somthing of which I view to be entirely different than a vast centralized bureaucratic government.

    The problem is people should not look for the government to solve their problems. If you don't like wal-mart don't shop there. Shop at the local mom and pop store. you will pay higher prices, but that's what you want.
    A problem occurs when in free market capitalism entire corporate conglomerates come to influence and own those that work within government.

    Then of course another problem of free market capitalism comes when the merchants themselves become more powerful than government as seen somthing on the lines like wallstreet having more power and influence than the government of Washington DC for example.

    It is a leftist idea to force your views on everyone else "make them all pay higher prices because I want the store protected".
    It's a international free market capitalist concept where foreign companies can come into your nation and essentially buy or force out all local forms of both business and industry.

    We don't live in an unrestrained free market. There have always been tariffs and such. Anti-monopoly laws exist. Labor laws and so forth. Pure free market capitalism would be destructive to a nation, no serious or educated person doubts this.
    Which only illustrates it's toxicity.

    We don't live in a unrestrained free market but such a free market is unnregulated enough to the point of still being damaging with it's international focuses and by it's means of upholding cheap labor at all costs.

    We see this with the outsourcing of jobs into foreign nations.

    We see this with the flood gates of international foreign immigration into our lands which then serves as a mechansim for companies to hire a cheap laboring workforce all the while it displaces national citizens.

    We also see this in decreased wages of the working class because companies refuse to have to pay any more than what they have to as a way of harboring most of the profit for themselves.

    I agree with the general view that modern Globalist Capitalism is harmful to nationalism but that's sort of apparent right from the name right? Let's not confuse 'Capitalism' as ONLY meaning the type of capitalism we have today in the U.S. or West Europe. No.
    What do you mean by saying this?

    Obviously a nationalist state would have certain laws and structure that would be more beneficial to the quality of the community rather than to "profit". So I think that was a very good and insightful point. I have taken note of some of the arguments here they are very useful.
    Nods.

    If we are looking at a National Socialist type state we must understand the big differance between a folkish socialist state and a modern "progressive" socialist state.

    In the folkish state wages are kept high. But retards, criminals etc. are removed from the labor pool, sterilized and so on. In leftist socialism wages are kept high, welfare freely dolled out etc. except the increasingly stupid and criminal population is left unchecked and the parasites grow fat from the "socialism".
    There are a number of flaws with any economical system in that nothing can ever be perfect but I do think if you reformed specific institutions you would not see the level of wasted expenditures that we see today.

    At any rate I think the solutions to our problems starts more on a grass roots level organizing rather than looking to the government. We should be able to form our own communities which weed out parasites and help each other out. One person could buy a business and pay the others a high wage etc. In that way he can show his community responsibility rather than looking to unrestrained greed. It all starts in the ideas of the people- the folk- not in governance. We need to see that there is more to the life and prosperity of a community than just sheckels and gold. The folk element is very important to national prosperity as well as the eternal ideal values and morals the people possess.
    Agreed.
    National Socialism is the only salvation for Germanics and Europids everywhere. Capitalism, libertarianism, and communism is the enemy.

    National socialized collectivism must prevail over radical individualism.

  2. #42
    Senior Member
    velvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Online
    4 Weeks Ago @ 03:10 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Northern Germany
    Subrace
    Faelid
    Country
    Germany Germany
    State
    North Rhine-Westphalia North Rhine-Westphalia
    Gender
    Age
    46
    Zodiac Sign
    Sagittarius
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Pestilent Supremacy
    Politics
    Blut und Boden
    Religion
    Fimbulwinter
    Posts
    4,999
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,295
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,416
    Thanked in
    623 Posts
    Paradigm:


    You deliberately ignore that a precondition to my position is to replace the current government including the criminal system they put up, and then to implement another government with other people who's concern is their own folk, who follow a nationalist ideology and so on.

    Your entire rant is completely worthless, because I did state it, though you removed the paragraph from your reply. When you ignore this initial position/opinion, there is not much point to discuss any further about possible alternatives to this.


    And its always nice to meet people who claim to know everything, but understand only little. You are one of them, because your dog-eat-dog system is obviously the one you want and love.

    Not all Americans obviously agree with that, and certainly Europeans do not agree with that, because we dont like being exploited and cheated all the time, just because someone granted us the right to do the same to others. When it's the American way, fine, your problem, but keep us Europeans out of your shit.

    Which is basically the entire problem. As long as the US government is owned by profit oriented banksters, we will not be able to opt out of this system, because if we would try America would bomb us into the ground once more. But I distract.


    Your "private ownership" is an illusion. Make one bad move and you'll be stripped off everything you ever 'owned' (ie had an exclusive use right to). It is really not more, you're granted this exclusive use right in order to keep up the illusion that it would be possible for you to "own" anything in order to make you participate further in the system whose only goal is to transfer all property to the banks. You work half your life for them anyway, because you take loans, mortgages whatever and pay them four times the worth of whatever you used the money for. One time failure to deliver the money to your slave master in time and the illusion of "property rights" bursts like a soap bubble. Someone slips on your ground and breaks his leg or whatever and the illusion of property rights bursts. And even if you never failed, never anything happened, someone wants your ground and house and they take it, because they can and they dont even need a court.

    There is really no big difference between capitalism and communism. In communism you know that you dont own anything, in capitalism you are made to pay four times the worth for the illusion and still dont own anything. And most of all, both systems are despotic and totalitarian, and both systems are a mean to the very same end.

    Makes no sense to me, and even less in the light of wanting to preserve my people into the future, a future that is worth to live. I have no interest to screw over my fellow folk and then whine about that there is no more community sense. I have no interest in letting people live in an illusion at whose end their extinction waits. We are masters of economy, and my interest is to make economy serve the common good. Because real freedom really only exists in a homogenous society which has a common good and higher goals. When that means to limit the greed of some, so be it.

    And, I ask you, what would be wrong about it when profits are directed back to the people who produced these profits in the first place and not end up in the vaults of people who already have robbed the people off of billions and want ever more more more? Explain what would be wrong about it when these profits instead serve the people, the nation and the common good?
    Ein Leben ist nichts, deine Sprosse sind alles
    Aller Sturm nimmt nichts, weil dein Wurzelgriff zu stark ist
    und endet meine Frist, weiss ich dass du noch da bist
    Gefürchtet von der Zeit, mein Baum, mein Stamm in Ewigkeit

    my signature

  3. #43
    Proffessional Hickerbilly
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    SpearBrave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    American of German decent
    Ancestry
    Bavaria/Switzerland
    Country
    Other Other
    State
    Kentucky Kentucky
    Location
    Central
    Gender
    Age
    53
    Zodiac Sign
    Libra
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Kunstschmiede
    Politics
    Self-Reliance
    Religion
    Asatru
    Posts
    4,574
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2,794
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,322
    Thanked in
    614 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by AlaricLachlan View Post
    How much older do you think capitalism is as a economical system?

    Curious.......
    As old as nature itself. As basic capital in the capitalism is just a exchange medium. A example of in is very easy and I think I already provided you with one in another thread. Since you are so stuck on the idea of what capitalism is not I will humor you. I will try and keep it simple so even a budding elitist can keep up.

    In nature there are things called plants. They are simple organisms requiring light,water, air and nutrients to exist. Some of these plants are more aggressive than other plants. Now the the more aggressive plants require more water and nutrients( capital ) than the lesser aggressive plants. When more aggressive plants moves into a new area they push out the lesser aggressive plants. After a period of time these aggressive plants deplete the water and nutrients( capital ) in a area and recede back. When these plants recede back the lesser aggressive plants have a chance to reestablish and flourish. The laws of supply and demand are over the water, nutrients and space required. Hence they are the capital in this case. That is no different than basic trading of goods and services. It is a reaction for a action.

    It has been said that capitalism as a sort of economical model was embraced by various merchants at the end of the medieval period of Europe in a small scale before it ballooned to be embraced by whole entire nations.

    Nonetheless Adam Smith was the only writer to go into great depth when it concerns capitalism in that prior to Adam Smith's writing everybody was using a mercantile form of economy which later was consequently replaced because of his influence.
    So there was no trade or barter or exchange mediums prior to the end of the medieval period in Europe? How odd I thought even the most primitive man had traded goods and even knowledge.

    So you have a esoteric view of capitalism as being somthing that is not just a economical system but instead is also found in nature as well.

    I would like to know how capitalism occurs in nature.

    Do flocks of birds have a open free market exchange amongst themselves that I don't know about?
    I don't see why you have to ask the same question twice, but anyway I explained it above.

    You can bet that wild flocks of birds cause actions and react to other actions in their environment.
    How can one have international free market capitalism and still have a intacted form of nationalism?
    Capitalism is going to exist no matter if you have nationalism or not. Plain and simple. Political Ideologies have little bearing on it. Even in the most ruthless dictatorial system capitalism exist. Goods are always being exchanged in one form or another.
    And yet several people beyond Marx who weren't even communist or Marxist viewed capitalism as a ideology as well.

    Since you like repeating this same old conjecture over and over again I think the burden of proof falls onto you to prove that capitalism is purely not some ideological framework.
    Marx was the first to misuse the term all that followed him also used the term incorrectly. If someone does something wrong for over a hundred years does it make it right? Of course it does not.

    Well you are the one that challenged what capitalism is you are the one that has to provide the proof. Oh are we having trouble with, I wonder why?

    There are various interpretations when one discusses trade centered around supply and demand.
    Well there are correct terms and incorrect terms, as I stated before most people who blame capitalism use the term in a incorrect manner. They are shifting the blame as to try and make their points valid. That is where marx comes in he wanted to blame something to try and impose his own ideas and the things that went with them.
    Well I would like to know more about this fact of nature you uphold.
    It is real easy just open your door and observe what goes on in the world around you and then. It is really simple and uses common sense. Not every has a twisted or hidden meaning most things in life are really just plain and simple.

    Explain more indepth please.
    Well, when a government is over restrictive and people still want or need goods and services black markets develop for these good and services. The old USSR was a prime example of this on many items, including even toilet paper.

    I hope this is all I can explain to you for now, as I am busy practicing basic capitalism and trying to make a supply meet a demand- working
    Life is like a fire hydrant- sometimes you help people put out their fires, but most of the time you just get peed on by every dog in the neighborhood.

  4. #44
    Spenglerian
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Caledonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Online
    Tuesday, July 26th, 2011 @ 05:30 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Scottish
    Ancestry
    Scotland,England, Germany,Austria,Switzerland
    Subrace
    Alpinid
    Country
    United States United States
    Location
    Sverige snart nog
    Gender
    Age
    33
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    RecyclingPlant / College Student
    Politics
    Socially Progressive Nationalism
    Religion
    Atheist, Nihilist, And Mystic
    Posts
    2,432
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    4
    Thanked in
    4 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Paradigm View Post
    Do I have to send half the people here a copy of Economics in One Lesson?

    Capitalism: A Discussion Piece

    Economics is a science. It's the science and study of human action. Human's have been interacting and trading before the usage of "capitalism". Even in the most primitive societies/tribes economics had it's place. Division of labor, trade, property, and saving. The foundations for capitalism haven't changed from even the most basic concepts societies use to grow and function. From the most primitive to the most advanced civilizations the same laws of economics apply to both.

    Capitalism is not an ideology, it's the preferred position of economics. For those who know economics, they acknowledge that capitalism is the most productive, as it's in it's natural free state, compared to restrictions based upon outside intervention. Whatever political philosophy you have, that doesn't change the fact of two people trading goods using a medium of exchange will take place somewhere in the world.

    People want to go on and on about nationalism or socialism and say capitalism is in the wrong. Well, can someone explain capitalism in only economic terms? Most of the opponents here have not. They probably couldn't explain the things they support. How would the economics of individuals differ in a country with a free-market compared to one of that of a nationalist? Are the markets even different? Does the nationalist country and/or government restrict trade in some areas?

    This topic becomes tiresome and goes in circles, mainly since the counter-arguments are weird and bizarre.
    Economics is a science.
    Alright.

    It's the science and study of human action.
    Sure.

    Human's have been interacting and trading before the usage of "capitalism".
    Yes they have.


    Even in the most primitive societies/tribes economics had it's place. Division of labor, trade, property, and saving.
    Of course not all primitive societies worked in the same manner.

    The foundations for capitalism haven't changed from even the most basic concepts societies use to grow and function.
    They have changed quite a bit actually.

    When mercantilism existed it was of the view that the prosperity of nation depended upon it's supply of capital and that the global volume of trade to be interchangeable.

    With capitalism as a economic system the means of production are all or mostly privately owned and operated for profit, and in which investments, distribution, income, production and pricing of goods and services are determined through the operation of a market economy of which both the nation state and government are essentially cut out of influence where there is only the means of the market economy itself that is loyal to nobody.

    [That's essentially the fundamental flaw of free market capitalism in that there is a lack of loyalties.]


    Capitalism is not an ideology, it's the preferred position of economics.
    Preferred positioning within economics is ideologically guided.

    For those who know economics, they acknowledge that capitalism is the most productive, as it's in it's natural free state, compared to restrictions based upon outside intervention. Whatever political philosophy you have, that doesn't change the fact of two people trading goods using a medium of exchange will take place somewhere in the world.
    The most productive on what exactly? Profit?

    Well when you have a entire economical system that is only loyal to profit I would imagine it would be very profitable to the few that are able to benefit from it's exchanges however when you only have a loyalty to profit alot of other things in comparison suffer that cannot solely depend on profit alone that needs people to transcend their greed namely like that of national identity.

    Still I don't believe capitalism is the most productive system considering before the advent of capitalism as a economical system nations profited all the same and still kept their nationalism intacted.

    Whatever political philosophy you have, that doesn't change the fact of two people trading goods using a medium of exchange will take place somewhere in the world.
    Yes well such mediums of exchanges can be done in a variety of ways of which don't have to specifically be done with a capitalist variation.

    People want to go on and on about nationalism or socialism and say capitalism is in the wrong. Well, can someone explain capitalism in only economic terms? Most of the opponents here have not. They probably couldn't explain the things they support. How would the economics of individuals differ in a country with a free-market compared to one of that of a nationalist? Are the markets even different? Does the nationalist country and/or government restrict trade in some areas?

    That all imports of foreign goods be discouraged as much as possible.

    That where certain imports are indispensable they be obtained at first hand, in exchange for other domestic goods instead of gold and silver.

    That as much as possible, imports be confined to raw materials that can be finished [in the home country].

    That opportunities be constantly sought for selling a country's surplus manufactures to foreigners, so far as necessary, for gold and silver.

    That no importation be allowed if such goods are sufficiently and suitably supplied at home.

    Neomercantilism is a term used to describe a policy regime which encourages exports, discourages imports, controls capital movement and centralizes currency decisions in the hands of a central government. The objective of neo-mercantilist policies is to increase the level of foreign reserves held by the government, allowing more effective monetary policy and fiscal policy.
    These are generally protectionist measures in the form of high tariffs and other import restrictions to protect domestic industries combined with government intervention to promote industrial growth, especially manufacturing. At its simplest level, it proposes that economic independence and self-sufficiency are legitimate objectives for a nation to pursue, and systems of protection are justified to allow the nation to develop its industrial and commercial infrastructure to the point where it can compete on equal terms in international trade. In macro-economic terms, it emphasizes a fixed currency and autonomy over monetary policy over capital mobility.
    Neomercantilism is founded on the use of control of capital movement and discouraging of domestic consumption as a means of increasing foreign reserves and promoting capital development. This involves protectionism on a host of levels: both protection of domestic producers, discouraging of consumer imports, structural barriers to prevent entry of foreign companies into domestic markets, manipulation of the currency value against foreign currencies and limitations on foreign ownership of domestic corporations. While all nations engage in these activities to one degree or another, neo-mercantilism makes them the focus of economic policy. The purpose is to develop export markets to developed countries, and selectively acquire strategic capital, while keeping ownership of the asset base in domestic hands.

    This use of protectionism is criticized on grounds that go back to Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations, which was aimed directly at classical mercantilist policies, and whose arguments are applied to neo-mercantilism. Namely that protectionism is effective as a means of fostering economic independence and national stability; and questioning the conclusion that it allows for sustainable development of the nation's industrial base in the most efficient manner. Instead market economics has for over two centuries argued that increasing competition within the nation which will more effectively promote capital development and efficient allocation of resources. "Free traders" argue that by closing an economy, resources will be spent duplicating products that could more effectively be bought from abroad, and that there will be less development of exports which offer a comparative advantage. Market economists also argue that protection denies a nation's own consumers the opportunity to buy at cheaper market prices when quotas or tariffs are imposed on imports.

    The subsidy of goods has also been advocated under neomercantilism. The fair trade movement claims that the protection of stability in emerging economies by guaranteeing a minimum purchase of goods at prices above those available in the current world markets, can contribute to restoring economic and social balance as well as promote social justice. Proponents of the fair trade movement argue that this may help to avoid the instability generated by the influence of global corporations on developed and developing nations.

    Neomercantilists claim that "Free Trade" results in a negative philosophy that a nation that is not competitive deserves to decline and perish, just like an under-performing corporation should. They argue that "free trade" does not work well whenever dumping is practiced or the international rules do not take into account the differences between wages, costs environmental regulations, and benets from nation to nation. For instance, there is a major difference in the cost of labour between a "First World" and "Third World" country for two equally skilled (or unskilled) sets of workers. When this economic reality is exploited by "First World" manufacturers, the benefits accrue to "First World" shareholders and consumers (and slightly improved work condition of exploited Third World workers) at the expense of privileged "First World" workers and their status in the "Middle Class".

    An unquestioningly open policy in such circumstances may effectively devalue "first world" human capital investments in favor of financial capital investments. Consider for example, a person deciding whether to invest in training as an engineer or in a portfolio of financial assets. Offshoring dramatically increases the effective supply of engineers, and as a result, their price will tend to decline (or grow at a slower rate). This decline will be increased by the lower cost of living in non-first world countries that would allow an engineer there to live much better on a lower nominal salary than their first world counterpart. (see purchasing power parity). This obviously is resulting in a huge immigration of skilled professionals from first-world countries to the third world, seeking a better quality of life.

    Faced with such prospects, rational economic agents will tend to avoid investing in human capital in areas that are vulnerable to such government-induced devaluation. Instead, they will shift training toward areas that are protected by regulation (for example : careers in law , medicine, government) or social tradition (tenured academia), or socio-cultural factors (sales) or local physical requirements (nursing, medicine, construction). Alternatively, rational economic agents in "first world" economies may choose to invest in financial assets instead of human capital — further eroding the long term ability of the "first world" country to produce and grow. As predicted by Adam Smith, this effect would reduce the inequality between First World and Third World countries, increasing overall fairness.

    Additionally, since cost of goods sold tends to be a larger component of total revenue than profits for most industries, production within a country may keep a larger portion of the total wealth within the local economy in comparison to dividends of profits and reduced prices on consumer goods. Furthermore, infrastructure investments may be reduced when production is shifted offshore. Over the longer term, such reduced local investments may reduce longer term productivity and economic growth. Neomercantilist economies on the other hand are often characterized by higher long term growth rates (that tend to flatten when neomercantilist policies are halted). This claim unfortunately is not verified among developed nations, where Australia is both the main proponent of international free trade and among the first world countries, the one with the higher sustained growth during the last fifteen years. Also, as of February 2009, Australia is also the only developed country who is not officially in recession.

    The language of neomercantilist policies repeats the claims of earlier centuries that protective measures benefit the nation as a whole and that governmental intervention secures the "wealth of the nation" for future generations. In doing so, neomercantilist admit that the interests of large corporations might as often be represented and protected as pushed aside for the national interest.

    As a neomercantilist nation's industrial production capacity and improving research and development grow as a threat to the hegemon's (who usually unilaterally practices free-trade as Britain in the 19th century and the USA in the late 20th century) domestic markets, so protectionism is the usual response, initially through political and, when necessary, military means (see World War I).

    [edit] Examples of neomercantilism
    [edit] United States and Germany in 19th Century
    By 1880 the United States passed the British Empire in economic strength — ahead of Germany, second in strength, due to Bismarck’s adherence to similar neomercantilist policies.

    After 1900, Britain was unable to remain an effective hegemon, having followed its "free trade" philosophy since the 1840s, but the United States was still pursuing policies of its American School rooted in Hamilton's three reports, that it had embraced in the 1860s under Abraham Lincoln. Germany followed Otto von Bismarck’s policies based on Friedrich List’s "National System," and American economic practices — allowing both powers to continue their dominance in world economics and power. Germany chose to use its strength to pursue a 'balance of power' with the British Empire leading indirectly to World War I, whereas the United States refrained from European power struggles through its foreign policy of 'isolationism' or non-interventionism in foreign conflicts.


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neomercantilism


    Protectionism is THE economic policy of restraining trade between states, through methods such as tariffs on imported goods, restrictive quotas, and a variety of other government regulations designed to discourage imports, and prevent foreign take-over of domestic markets and companies.

    This policy contrasts with free trade, where government barriers to trade and movement of capital are kept to a minimum. In recent years, it has become closely aligned with anti-globalization. The term is mostly used in the context of economics, where protectionism refers to policies or doctrines which protect businesses and workers within a country by restricting or regulating trade with foreign nations.
    A variety of policies have been claimed to achieve protectionist goals. These include:

    Tariffs: Typically, tariffs (or taxes) are imposed on imported goods. Tariff rates usually vary according to the type of goods imported. Import tariffs will increase the cost to importers, and increase the price of imported goods in the local markets, thus lowering the quantity of goods imported. Tariffs may also be imposed on exports, and in an economy with floating exchange rates, export tariffs have similar effects as import tariffs. However, since export tariffs are often perceived as 'hurting' local industries, while import tariffs are perceived as 'helping' local industries, export tariffs are seldom implemented.
    Import quotas: To reduce the quantity and therefore increase the market price of imported goods. The economic effects of an import quota is similar to that of a tariff, except that the tax revenue gain from a tariff will instead be distributed to those who receive import licenses. Economists often suggest that import licenses be auctioned to the highest bidder, or that import quotas be replaced by an equivalent tariff.
    Administrative barriers: Countries are sometimes accused of using their various administrative rules (eg. regarding food safety, environmental standards, electrical safety, etc.) as a way to introduce barriers to imports.
    Anti-dumping legislation Supporters of anti-dumping laws argue that they prevent "dumping" of cheaper foreign goods that would cause local firms to close down. However, in practice, anti-dumping laws are usually used to impose trade tariffs on foreign exporters.
    Direct subsidies: Government subsidies (in the form of lump-sum payments or cheap loans) are sometimes given to local firms that cannot compete well against foreign imports. These subsidies are purported to "protect" local jobs, and to help local firms adjust to the world markets.
    Export subsidies: Export subsidies are often used by governments to increase exports. Export subsidies are the opposite of export tariffs, exporters are paid a percentage of the value of their exports. Export subsidies increase the amount of trade, and in a country with floating exchange rates, have effects similar to import subsidies.
    Exchange rate manipulation: A government may intervene in the foreign exchange market to lower the value of its currency by selling its currency in the foreign exchange market. Doing so will raise the cost of imports and lower the cost of exports, leading to an improvement in its trade balance. However, such a policy is only effective in the short run, as it will most likely lead to inflation in the country, which will in turn raise the cost of exports, and reduce the relative price of imports.
    International patent systems: There is an argument for viewing national patent systems as a cloak for protectionist trade policies at a national level. Two strands of this argument exist: one when patents held by one country form part of a system of exploitable relative advantage in trade negotiations against another, and a second where adhering to a worldwide system of patents confers "good citizenship" status despite 'de facto protectionism'. Peter Drahos explains that "States realized that patent systems could be used to cloak protectionist strategies. There were also reputational advantages for states to be seen to be sticking to intellectual property systems. One could attend the various revisions of the Paris and Berne conventions, participate in the cosmopolitan moral dialogue about the need to protect the fruits of authorial labor and inventive genius...knowing all the while that one's domestic intellectual property system was a handy protectionist weapon." [7]
    Protectionists believe that there is a legitimate need for government restrictions on free trade in order to protect their country’s economy and its people’s standard of living.

    [edit] The "Comparative Advantage" argument has lost its legitimacy
    The Comparative Advantage argument is used by most economists as a basis for their support of free trade policies. Opponents of these policies argue that the Comparative Advantage argument has lost its legitimacy in a globally integrated world—in which capital is free to move internationally. Herman Daly, a leading voice in the discipline of ecological economics, emphasizes that although Ricardo's theory of comparative advantage is one of the most elegant theories in economics, its application to the present day is illogical: "Free capital mobility totally undercuts Ricardo's comparative advantage argument for free trade in goods, because that argument is explicitly and essentially premised on capital (and other factors) being immobile between nations. Under the new global economy, capital tends simply to flow to wherever costs are lowest—that is, to pursue absolute advantage." [10]

    Protectionists would point to the building of plants and shifting of production to Mexico by American companies such as GE, GM, and even Hershey Chocolate as proof of this argument.

    The Comparative Advantage argument is also premised on full employment. According to the Wikipedia entry on Comparative Advantage, “if one or other of the economies has less than full employment of factors of production, then this excess capacity must usually be used up before the comparative advantage reasoning can be applied”. Protectionists believe that it is therefore erroneous to base trade policy on the principle of Comparative Advantage in those countries that suffer from significant unemployment or underemployment.

    [edit] Domestic tax policies can favor foreign goods
    Protectionists believe that allowing foreign goods to enter domestic markets without being subject to tariffs or other forms of taxation, leads to a situation where domestic goods are at a disadvantage, a kind of reverse protectionism. By ruling out revenue tariffs on foreign products, governments must rely solely on domestic taxation to provide its revenue, which falls disproportionately on domestic manufacturing. As Paul Craig Roberts notes: "[Foreign discrimination of US products] is reinforced by the US tax system, which imposes no appreciable tax burden on foreign goods and services sold in the US but imposes a heavy tax burden on US producers of goods and services regardless of whether they are sold within the US or exported to other countries."[11]

    Protectionists argue that this reverse protectionism is most clearly seen and most detrimental to those countries (such as the US) that do not participate in the Value Added Tax (VAT) system. This is a system which generates revenues from taxation on the sale of goods and services, whether foreign or domestic. Protectionists argue that a country that does not participate is at a distinct disadvantage when trading with a country that does. That the final selling price of a product from a non-participating country sold in a country with a VAT tax must bear not only the tax burden of the country of origin, but also a portion of the tax burden of the country where it is being sold. Conversely, the selling price of a product made in a participating country and sold in a country that does not participate, bears no part of the tax burden of the country in which it is sold (as do the domestic products it is competing with). Moreover, the participating country rebates VAT taxes collected in the manufacture of a product if that product is sold in a non-participating country. This allows exporters of goods from participating countries to reduce the price of products sold in non-participating countries.

    Protectionists believe that governments should address this inequity, if not by adopting a VAT tax, then by at least imposing compensating taxes (tariffs) on imports.

    [edit] Infant industry argument
    Main article: Infant industry argument
    Protectionists believe that infant industries must be protected in order to allow them to grow to a point where they can fairly compete with the larger mature industries established in foreign countries. They believe that without this protection, infant industries will die before they reach a size and age where economies of scale, industrial infrastructure, and skill in manufacturing have progressed sufficiently allow the industry to compete in the global market.[citation needed]

    [edit] Unrestricted trade undercuts domestic policies for social good
    Most industrialized governments have long held that laissez-faire capitalism creates social evils that harm its citizens. To protect those citizens, these governments have enacted laws that restrict what companies can and can not do in pursuit of profit. Examples are laws regarding:

    child labor
    environmental protection
    competition (antitrust)
    occupational safety and health
    equal opportunity
    collective bargaining
    minimum wage
    intellectual property
    Protectionists argue that these laws place an economic burden on domestic companies bound by them that put those companies at a disadvantage when they compete, both domestically and abroad, with goods and services produced by companies unfettered by such restrictions. They argue that governments have a responsibility to protect their corporations as well as their citizens when putting its companies at a competitive disadvantage by enacting laws for social good. Otherwise, they believe that these laws end up destroying domestic companies and ultimately hurting the citizens these laws were designed to protect.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism
    National Socialism is the only salvation for Germanics and Europids everywhere. Capitalism, libertarianism, and communism is the enemy.

    National socialized collectivism must prevail over radical individualism.

  5. #45
    Senior Member
    velvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Online
    4 Weeks Ago @ 03:10 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Northern Germany
    Subrace
    Faelid
    Country
    Germany Germany
    State
    North Rhine-Westphalia North Rhine-Westphalia
    Gender
    Age
    46
    Zodiac Sign
    Sagittarius
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Pestilent Supremacy
    Politics
    Blut und Boden
    Religion
    Fimbulwinter
    Posts
    4,999
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,295
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,416
    Thanked in
    623 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by SpearBrave
    The laws of supply and demand are over the water, nutrients and space required. Hence they are the capital in this case. That is no different than basic trading of goods and services. It is a reaction for a action.
    Where are the debts? The interests charged for loaning? The mortgages? The taxes? The profits?
    Ein Leben ist nichts, deine Sprosse sind alles
    Aller Sturm nimmt nichts, weil dein Wurzelgriff zu stark ist
    und endet meine Frist, weiss ich dass du noch da bist
    Gefürchtet von der Zeit, mein Baum, mein Stamm in Ewigkeit

    my signature

  6. #46
    Spenglerian
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Caledonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Online
    Tuesday, July 26th, 2011 @ 05:30 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Scottish
    Ancestry
    Scotland,England, Germany,Austria,Switzerland
    Subrace
    Alpinid
    Country
    United States United States
    Location
    Sverige snart nog
    Gender
    Age
    33
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    RecyclingPlant / College Student
    Politics
    Socially Progressive Nationalism
    Religion
    Atheist, Nihilist, And Mystic
    Posts
    2,432
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    4
    Thanked in
    4 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by velvet View Post
    Where are the debts? The interests charged for loaning? The mortgages? The taxes? The profits?
    But wait, I thought capitalism was to be found all amongst nature.
    National Socialism is the only salvation for Germanics and Europids everywhere. Capitalism, libertarianism, and communism is the enemy.

    National socialized collectivism must prevail over radical individualism.

  7. #47
    Proffessional Hickerbilly
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    SpearBrave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    American of German decent
    Ancestry
    Bavaria/Switzerland
    Country
    Other Other
    State
    Kentucky Kentucky
    Location
    Central
    Gender
    Age
    53
    Zodiac Sign
    Libra
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Kunstschmiede
    Politics
    Self-Reliance
    Religion
    Asatru
    Posts
    4,574
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2,794
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,322
    Thanked in
    614 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by velvet View Post
    Where are the debts? The interests charged for loaning? The mortgages? The taxes? The profits?
    Those things again are not capitalism, I and others have already explained that. That is usery-loans, mortages, and taxes - governmant created- and Profits are just a suplus in my explantion the surplus in the case with plants could be the production of fruit/seed and foliage.

    Really it is that simple if you break it down. Ever think there is reason why some people try and over complicate things? Or the reason why some people or groups try to change the simple meaning of things? The reason is they want to further their own agendas. In the case of this thread and the artical that started it you have to question why someone would write it in the first place.
    Life is like a fire hydrant- sometimes you help people put out their fires, but most of the time you just get peed on by every dog in the neighborhood.

  8. #48
    Account Inactive

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Online
    Tuesday, April 5th, 2011 @ 01:02 PM
    Ethnicity
    German/Scottish
    Ancestry
    German/Scottish
    Country
    Canada Canada
    Location
    Eiskalt
    Gender
    Politics
    Bierhalle rutsch
    Religion
    Bolkstoff
    Posts
    113
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    Quote Originally Posted by velvet View Post
    Where are the debts? The interests charged for loaning? The mortgages? The taxes? The profits?
    All forms of debt/credit sit on the opposite side of the balance sheet from capital. To confuse it as capital is disingenuous and/or amateurish.

    I will make several points, whether anybody wishes to debate them is up to you:

    1) No other economic ideology has pulled more people out of poverty than free-market capitalism.... just in the last decade.

    2) There are about a half dozen countries on the planet that can go mecantilist/protectionist and not starve to death in a month. See North Korea.

    3) More world leaders have been assasinated over the war against specie backed money than all the other wars have managed to accomplish in the last two centuries. When 'capital' was a tangible entity people and their countries had sovereignty. Now we accept central bank debt backed paper money for goods produced and services rendered. Just think about how ridiculous that is for a moment, we accept somebody elses debt for labour rendered, debt which actually ends up on the opposite side of the balance sheet from all the items in life we want and need-true capital. There is a legal argument here, abstract, yet simple, the difference between allodial money (freedom) and feudal scrip (slavery) is very much an accounting slight of hand.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jubilee_(Biblical)

    From a legal point of view, the Jubilee law effectively banned sale of land as fee simple, and instead land could only be leased for no more than 50 years. The biblical regulations go on to specify that the price of land had to be proportional to how many years remained before the Jubilee, with land being cheaper the closer it is to the Jubilee.[10]
    http://www.amazon.com/Gold-Wars-Batt.../dp/0971038007

  9. #49
    Senior Member
    velvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Online
    4 Weeks Ago @ 03:10 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Northern Germany
    Subrace
    Faelid
    Country
    Germany Germany
    State
    North Rhine-Westphalia North Rhine-Westphalia
    Gender
    Age
    46
    Zodiac Sign
    Sagittarius
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Pestilent Supremacy
    Politics
    Blut und Boden
    Religion
    Fimbulwinter
    Posts
    4,999
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,295
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,416
    Thanked in
    623 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by SpearBrave
    Those things again are not capitalism
    So, what are they then when they are not part of capitalism?

    Why do they exist in the first place when they are not part of capitalism but we have a "capitalist free market system" in place?

    You said, btw, capitalism (including interests, mortgages and profits) exists in nature. Your explanation though is that you simply ignore things that exist in capitalism, but doesnt fit well with your explanation. That's not an explanation at all, but the usual distortion of the topic at hand: the failures of capitalism.

    Quote Originally Posted by SpearBrave
    Really it is that simple if you break it down. Ever think there is reason why some people try and over complicate things? Or the reason why some people or groups try to change the simple meaning of things?
    The only one doing this is you and paradigm. Capitalism is a system, that you want to break down to simple laws of demand and supply, completely ignoring that capitalism comes with some more things.

    Taxes, mortgages, interests, profits, indebting, etc are all parts of Capitalism. You dont like them and I agree, but they are still part of capitalism.

    Quote Originally Posted by SpearBrave
    The reason is they want to further their own agendas. In the case of this thread and the artical that started it you have to question why someone would write it in the first place.
    Capitalism has an agenda too: to transfer all property into the hands of few and make the rest pay for the costs of doing so.

    The intention of such articles is to open eyes. A ruleless "free market" removes borders and nations by design. For me there is nothing new in this article.

    And I ask you too: what would be wrong about it when the profits, that the people generated in the first place, would serve them, the common good, the nation, the national idendity and economy and with that the people/society as a whole, instead of the greed of few? What would be wrong about it to make property rights real instead of holding up an illusion thereof?

    And maybe another interesting question is, what is your agenda when you defend the greed of those few who give a shit about your rights?
    Last edited by velvet; Wednesday, December 1st, 2010 at 04:09 PM. Reason: rewording
    Ein Leben ist nichts, deine Sprosse sind alles
    Aller Sturm nimmt nichts, weil dein Wurzelgriff zu stark ist
    und endet meine Frist, weiss ich dass du noch da bist
    Gefürchtet von der Zeit, mein Baum, mein Stamm in Ewigkeit

    my signature

  10. #50
    Proffessional Hickerbilly
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    SpearBrave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    American of German decent
    Ancestry
    Bavaria/Switzerland
    Country
    Other Other
    State
    Kentucky Kentucky
    Location
    Central
    Gender
    Age
    53
    Zodiac Sign
    Libra
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Kunstschmiede
    Politics
    Self-Reliance
    Religion
    Asatru
    Posts
    4,574
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2,794
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,322
    Thanked in
    614 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by velvet View Post
    So, what are they then when they are not part of capitalism?

    Why do they exist in the first place when they are not part of capitalism but we have a "capitalist free market system" in place?

    You said, btw, capitalism (including interests, mortgages and profits) exists in nature. Your explanation though is that you simply ignore things that exist in capitalism, but doesnt fit well with your explanation. That's not an explanation at all, but the usual distortion of the topic at hand: the failures of capitalism.
    I never said profit does not exist, profit is just surplus. The other things you mention are things created by man. There are not part of basic capitalism. Those things exist where governments create them.
    Why do they exist in the first place when they are not part of capitalism but we have a "capitalist free market system" in place?
    You are confusing what capitalism with usery ( money lending ). Taxation in the sense you mention it is a fee created by governments, a toll so to speak for being part of a society.
    You said, btw, capitalism (including interests, mortgages and profits) exists in nature. Your explanation though is that you simply ignore things that exist in capitalism, but doesnt fit well with your explanation. That's not an explanation at all, but the usual distortion of the topic at hand: the failures of capitalism.
    First off intrest and mortages are not parts of capitalism other than a service that is provide as a good. They do not define capitalism what capitalism no more than if someone makes a car and sells it. Profit is just a surplus of exchange medium.
    The only one doing this is you and paradigm. Capitalism is a system, that you want to break down to simple laws of demand and supply, completely ignoring that capitalism comes with some more things.
    Well there is thirsty,genius as well that agree. I want to brake Capitalism down to it's root core, and at that core it is not a bad thing. The things you mention come with government and market control.
    Taxes, mortgages, interests, profits, indebting, etc are all parts of Capitalism. You dont like them and I agree, but they are still part of capitalism.
    All of these things except profit( nand profit occures in nature as well ) are not part or products of capitalism. You have those same things even in a controlled market.

    Capitalism has an agenda too: to transfer all property into the hands of few and make the rest pay for the costs of doing so.
    Capitalism has no agenda it is just a series of actions and reactions.
    The intention of such articles is to open eyes. A ruleless "free market" removes borders and nations by design. For me there is nothing new in this article.

    And I ask you too: what would be wrong about it when the profits, that the people generated in the first place, would serve them, the common good, the nation, the national idendity and economy and with that the people/society as a whole, instead of the greed of few? What would be wrong about it to make property rights real instead of holding up an illusion thereof?

    And maybe another interesting question is, what is your agenda when you defend the greed of those few who give a shit about your rights?
    Is the intention to open peoples eyes or is it to distract or make them lose hope? Only the writer knows what his intent is in this case.

    There is nothing wrong if a nation/people/folk use those things to make them strong. Ownership of property going to few is where people interacted and controled free markets to their advantage using government and greed.

    My agenda is that Germanic people view things in realistic manner, not by unrealistic version of something that the left twisted. Basically I believe in the indvididual Germanic person and their ability to succeed if they are given the oportunity to do so without a restrictive government controlling every aspect of their lives.
    Life is like a fire hydrant- sometimes you help people put out their fires, but most of the time you just get peed on by every dog in the neighborhood.

Similar Threads

  1. So Much for the 'Free' Market. Now What?
    By Hanna in forum Economics, Business, & Finance
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: Friday, November 14th, 2008, 04:02 AM
  2. Anti-Capitalist Free Market
    By DanseMacabre in forum Economics, Business, & Finance
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: Monday, June 2nd, 2008, 03:00 PM
  3. Capitalism Versus Free Enterprise
    By Frans_Jozef in forum Political Theory
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: Monday, January 1st, 2007, 09:08 AM
  4. Replies: 33
    Last Post: Tuesday, November 11th, 2003, 06:20 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •